Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins

I agree with Randy's statement. I don't see anything in it as
written that should be objectionable, even to a fundamentalist.
However, the perspective that Randy expresses could lead to
conclusions that would be objectionable to a fundamentalist. It
implies that instead of applying a formulaic rule for interpretation,
we must think more deeply and carefully about each passage.

As already said, the questions are good ones. They are basic
hermeneutical questions, all dealt with at some level in any
hermeneutics text. The simple answer to all of them is "context,"
both the literary context of the chapter and book (and the entire
Bible), and the cultural-historical context of the original author
and audience. Though this answer is simple to state, it is often not
simple to implement.

Kirk

On Aug 10, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Randy Isaac wrote:

> John,
> These are excellent questions that your friend is asking. I feel
> that every one of us needs to ask and answer these kinds of
> questions for every passage of the Word. After reading his
> questions and rereading what I wrote, I wish I had done a little
> more editing. There were more anthropomorphisms than I should have
> used, for example.
> But the primary issue is central to understanding the Bible. How
> do we know what God is revealing to us and teaching us vs what we
> are reading into the passage. First of all, we must approach it
> with great humility and seek the Spirit for his guidance. Secondly,
> we must begin with the most central teaching of the Scriptures
> which is so pervasive and clear throughout the text that it cannot
> be missed. That is the centrality of Christ, the incarnate Son of
> God and his death on the cross for us and the resurrection. Seen
> through that lens we begin to interpret other passages as they
> relate to this revelation. How does a particular passage contribute
> to the revelation of Christ and our relationship to him? At any
> point where there are multiple possible meanings, we cannot always
> resolve the situation and may need to wait for further insight. All
> relevant data, including scientific observations, can help us
> distinguish among various possible interpretations, but everything
> is tested through the lens of Christ and the cross.
>
> I'm sure there are many others on this list who are far more
> knowledgeable than I in this field and can help clarify further.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Walley
> To: AmericanScientificAffiliation ; Randy Isaac
> Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 4:12 AM
> Subject: Fw: [asa] Olasky on Collins
>
>
> Randy,
>
> I took the liberty of forwarding your response to a friend of mine
> who is a philosopher and also a professor at Southern Evangelical
> Seminary and this was his response. This guy is a really smart but
> he is one of the the fundamentalist types I mentioned in my other
> thread and we have debated endlessly about TE/ID for several years.
> He does at least occasionally maintain the dialogue like here so I
> have hope that I may still be able to reach him one day. I have put
> George in touch with him before. He is definitely convinced that he
> has the correct theology though.
>
> These questions are typical of a philosopher but valid. This
> appears to be an interesting opportunity for us to explain how we
> know what is true and the role of science in establishing what we
> know. If anyone on the list cares to respond to him I would be
> happy to forward the comments.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
>
> John,
> Thanks for the email. It is very interesting. I do have a few
> questions regarding number five (which I've pasted for convenience
> with emphasis added).
>
> 5."The basic problem may be that Collins believes in Christ's
> resurrection but doesn't seem to have a high view of Scripture,
> which is where we primarily learn about Christ's resurrection."
> No, that is mistaking a "high view of Scripture" for a particular
> interpretation of Scripture. Collins is committed to the
> inspiration of the Bible which to him means understanding it for
> what God is teaching, not defining "high view" to be a certain
> human interpretation of what God might be teaching. Specifically,
> God did not plan the Bible to be a textbook on modern science or to
> reveal scientific mysteries such as what sort of particle causes
> gravitational attraction or the exact processes of biological
> development. Rather, God meant it to reveal his sovereignty and
> plan of salvation. Is it proper exegesis to force the Bible to
> answer the sort of scientific questions we feel are important,
> rather than recognizing what message God intended the text to speak?
>
> First, how does he know what God "did not plan the Bible to be"?
> Where does he get this knowledge?
> Second, how does he know what God meant it to reveal?
> Third, why is it that when he tells us what he thinks God meant,
> this is not (presumably) "a certain human interpretation" but when
> others say what they think God or the Bible means, it might be "a
> certain human interpretation"?
> Fourth, how can he know what message God has intended for the text?
> Where does he get this knowledge?
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net>
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Sunday, August 9, 2009 9:12:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Olasky on Collins
> Dear Mr. Olasky,
> The American Scientific Affiliation is a Fellowship of
> Christians in science. We are committed to a statement of faith
> based on the Apostles’ and the Nicene creeds and to integrity in
> science. We were founded in 1941 at the instigation of the
> president of Moody Bible Institute. We are not an advocacy group
> and do not take positions in areas of honest disagreement among
> Christians but encourage dialog in a spirit of Christian love. See
> www.asa3.org.
> Francis Collins is one of our members who was elected a Fellow
> in 2006. Though I cannot speak for him and our organization does
> not take sides, we do want to ensure that there is a clarity of
> dialog with accurate and fair analysis of all sides. In that
> spirit, may I offer the following comments, compiled with edits
> from several of our members, in response to your recent column
> titled “An Hour, Sir, Please”.
> 1. "Collins recently set up the BioLogos Foundation: Its website
> defines BioLogos as "the belief that Darwinism is a correct
> science." This is confusing: Darwinism means unguided evolution,
> right?"
> No, Darwinism means different things to different people and is
> used in different ways. In Collins's statement he is simply talking
> about the predominant role of descent with modification and natural
> selection in the development of species.
>
> 2. "Does Collins mean by "theistic evolution" the concept that God
> is guiding the evolutionary process?"
> Yes, Collins does mean God guiding the evolutionary process just as
> he guides the gravitational process, the electromagnetic process,
> and other processes in nature. God insures the continued
> functioning of the laws of nature he created, and scientists study
> the ways in which they are manifest in nature. This is consistent
> with the Christian belief in God as both creator and sustainer of
> his creation.
>
> 3. "If so, isn't that a version of ID?"
> No, not ID as usually described by its advocates. Yes, as
> Christians we all believe that our Creator is an intelligent
> designer and we believe that the awesome world around us declares
> the existence of this intelligent designer. But ID generally refers
> to the belief that a) evolution is not an adequate scientific
> explanation of the origin of species, and b) that there is a
> specific logical argument based on DNA-information being specified
> complex information for which the best explanation is an
> indeterminate intelligent designer. That is the position with which
> Collins disagrees.
>
> 4."On the other hand, if Collins believes that God passively
> watches evolution unfold, isn't that deistic evolution? "
> No, if by deistic evolution you mean that God starts the evolution
> going, and no longer has any role in his creation. In Collins's
> views, God guides evolution and is intimately involved in
> sustaining his creation at every instant--the same for evolution as
> for gravity and for electromagnetism.
>
> 5."The basic problem may be that Collins believes in Christ's
> resurrection but doesn't seem to have a high view of Scripture,
> which is where we primarily learn about Christ's resurrection."
> No, that is mistaking a "high view of Scripture" for a particular
> interpretation of Scripture. Collins is committed to the
> inspiration of the Bible which
> to him means understanding it for what God is teaching, not
> defining "high view" to be a certain human interpretation of what
> God might be teaching. Specifically, God did not plan the Bible to
> be a textbook on modern science or to reveal scientific mysteries
> such as what sort of particle causes gravitational attraction or
> the exact processes of biological development. Rather, God meant
> it to reveal his sovereignty and plan of salvation. Is it proper
> exegesis to force the Bible to answer the sort of scientific
> questions we feel are important, rather than recognizing what
> message God intended the text to speak?
> 6. "For example, Collins' BioLogos website declares, "It seems
> likely that Adam and Eve were not individual historical characters,
> but represented a larger population of first humans who bore the
> image of God."
> Yes, that is a likely scientific interpretation and an appropriate
> biblical interpretation as well. There are many well-respected
> theologians and Bible-believing scientists and philosophers, dating
> back at least to St. Augustine , who have differed over the
> specific scientific relevance of various portions of scripture, yet
> have held an authentically Christian theology.
> 7."Many subsequent figures in the Bible, preeminently Jesus,
> referred to Adam as an individual: Were they deluded? "
> No, they were not deluded but neither were they modern scientists
> or historians trying to document a historical event. This was the
> conventional populist belief at the time and the messages Jesus and
> Paul were giving were not science lessons but deeper theological
> lessons. This isn't delusion, but speaking in the language of the
> people.
> 8."Still, I'm not so worried about Collins' theological statements:
> Many readers can exegete them and come to their own conclusions.
> What I and many others need help with is the science. I'll put it
> simply and personally: I like Collins and find him convincing as he
> attacks ID. But when I hear Steve Meyer, author of Signature in the
> Cell, a major new book published by HarperCollins and reviewed
> positively by many scientists, expound the flaws in Darwinism, I
> find him utterly convincing."
> It is true that Stephen Meyer is a very convincing writer. I
> recently obtained this book and am partially through reading it. It
> is indeed a well written manifesto—perhaps a definitive ID
> scientific apologetic. The arguments are not convincing to most
> scientists, including Christians in science, but the case is made
> in such a persuasive style that many people will be impressed.
> 9."I don't understand the science well enough to ask Collins
> intelligent follow-up questions, so I'd love to see a discussion
> between Collins and Meyer. Earlier this year I asked Collins
> personally if he'd come to The King's College in the Empire State
> Building sometime and spend an hour before faculty and students
> discussing the issues with Meyer: We'd tape it and put excerpts in
> WORLD. Collins said no, and he has since said no to other entreaties."
> Collins has the right to be selective of the many requests he has
> received. It is understandable that he would prefer to engage a
> biochemist regarding topics in biology.
> 10."Of course, he was busy earlier this year and he'll be even
> busier now. Collins may also be averse to sharing a platform with
> someone below his status, but Meyer has a Cambridge University
> Ph.D. and, as of 10:49 p.m. on July 6, had the No. 1 best-seller in
> Amazon's Kindle store in the "science and religion" category;
> Collins' book, The Language of God, was No. 3. (Note: Collins' has
> been out for a couple of years and has sold widely-but Meyer is a
> worthy challenger.)"
> Truth is not based on best-selling book volumes.
> 11."I still want to hear two intelligent, influential guys
> discussing design, so I'm asking Collins publicly: Please, sir,
> busy senators and governors and major authors are coming to King's
> these days, and I suspect you too will be coming to Manhattan
> sometime. Whenever you do, can you spare an hour?"
> If you had come to the ASA meeting last weekend, that's exactly
> what you would have heard.http://www.asa3.org/ASA/meetingASA.html
> There are advocates on both sides of the ID debate among ASA
> members, and we encourage dialog in a spirit of Christian love.
> Randy
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 11 13:49:32 2009